Assessing Stability of Crutch Users by Non-Contact Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancing gait stability in people who use crutches is paramount for their health. With the significant difference in gait compared to users who do not require an assistive device, the use of standard gait analysis tools to measure movement for temporary crush users and physically disabled people proves to be more challenging. In this paper, a novel approach based on video analysis is proposed as non-contact low-cost solution to the more expensive alternative with the data collected from processed videos, two values are calculated: the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of acceleration, and the Signal to Noise Ratio of the jerk (time derivative of acceleration), to assess the user's stability while they walk with crutches. The adopted methodology has been tested on a total of 10 participants. Five are temporary users of assistive devices with one being a long-term user and the other four novice users, and five are disabled participants who use those assistive devices permanently. Preliminary results show differences between novice users, long-term users, and physically disabled users. The approach is promising and could improve the assessment of crutch user stability, allowing for the correction of gait for individuals while using an inexpensive non-contact setup and preventing unnecessary falls.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".